Is there a point to color calibrators if one does not do prints?

[yhelothar]

I'm really not seeing the point. In fact, I think maybe the best monitor to edit on would be TN, since most people have TN monitors, so at least your edits would look like what most people have.

Well maybe TN monitors would not produce the full spectrum of colors possible, so an IPS/VA monitor would still be better. But even then, calibrating it would only make it look more deviated from what most people see.

So what's the point?

 

[Fardringle]

Even if you aren't printing the photos, you should want the colors to be as accurate as possible so they look the way you want them to look on other peoples' computers. Even having the exact same model of screen doesn't guarantee that the colors will look the same on both screens. It's usually not too bad but I have seen a case where the same picture had a green tint on one new monitor and a red tint on a second identical monitor when both were connected to the same video card on the same computer...

 

[yhelothar]

"you should want the colors to be as accurate as possible so they look the way you want them to look on other peoples' computers."
wat

 

[corkyg]

Calibrating color on your computer does not guarantee that someone else's computer will see it the same way. Their monitor may not be, and probably is not, calibrated. Frankly, I don't give a rat's patootie about that. LOL

 

[Throckmorton]

A week or two ago my Dell 2405FPW died, so I had to edit on my Sony CW laptop screen. It felt like I was flying blind. Most people do have TN screens, but all TNs are different. So if you edit on your crappy TN and it looks good, all that means is someone else with an equally crappy TN with different color reproduction will look even worse. The best way to get decent results for every viewer is with an accurate screen.

 

[yhelothar]

So a calibrated screen is the average of all uncalibrated screens is what you are saying?

 

[rivan]

So a calibrated screen is the average of all uncalibrated screens is what you are saying?

A calibrated screen will let you get to the best possible starting point. From there, all bets are off.

Which do you think is better:
a. Editing on a bad screen, then being displayed on a bad screen?
a1. ...then displaying on a good screen?

b. Editing on a good screen, then displaying on a bad screen?
b1. ...then displaying on a good screen?

 

[Fardringle]

It's true that there's no way you can know if other peoples' screens will be calibrated, but if yours is calibrated, then you can be sure that the colors will look right on any other screen that is also calibrated properly. If you adjust your pictures to look right on a "bad" screen then the picture will look bad on EVERY screen except those that are exactly the same "bad" as yours. If you don't care about it being perfect then I wouldn't spend the money on a calibration tool, but there are some online tools that can do a moderately decent job of getting you "close enough" for free.

 

[twistedlogic]

...there are some online tools that can do a moderately decent job of getting you "close enough" for free.

Links?

 

[Fardringle]

http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/CALIBRATE.HTM
http://displaycalibration.com/
http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#QuickGamma

Just a few examples. None of these are going to get you anywhere near the results of a professional calibration, but they are a quick and easy way to make sure your monitor is at least in the right "neighborhood". I like QuickGamma (the last link) the best out of these options.

 

[elitejp]

I agree with most in that if your not printing then its not necessary to callibrate. I have never heard any friend notice these types of nuances in pictures between monitors. The people i here complaining are those who are pro photographers or wanna be pro photographers, in which I can understand.

 

[Throckmorton]

So a calibrated screen is the average of all uncalibrated screens is what you are saying?

Yeah, that's the way I see it.

 

[yhelothar]

From my experience with my Huey calibrator on 4 monitors, it made all 4 screens have a magenta tinge in relative to uncalibrated. So all 4 monitors would be close to each other if they weren't calibrated, but if one was calibrated, it would be off from the uncalibrated. I do suspect that my calibrator could be defective. My first one went defective where its calibration turned progressively more green.

Also from my experience, I find most TN screens to have a cooler color temperature. The reds are less saturated than non-TN screens. So in that sense, they share a similarity.

 

[PurdueRy]

It becomes really critical if you have a wide gamut monitor and want to do photo editing or plan to do work in color spaces other than that roughly spanned by your monitor.

 

[alkemyst]

"you should want the colors to be as accurate as possible so they look the way you want them to look on other peoples' computers."
wat

It's only going to work if they are calibrated too .

Seriously most laymen don't need calibrators...also they end up buying way more 'camera' then they need.

It's funny to see so many with $1500 bodies using full auto and not even program.

 

[yhelothar]

Forget layman, I'm arguing that there isn't even really much of a point of buying one even for the most veteran photo editor(that doesn't do prints).

 

[alkemyst]

Well there is alot gained if on is indeed a editor, I use an eye-one LT with my NEC 2490. There is a big difference ESP in black and white levels.

 

[yhelothar]

Well there is alot gained if on is indeed a editor, I use an eye-one LT with my NEC 2490. There is a big difference ESP in black and white levels.

Black and white levels are ones that can be easily be adjusted without calibrators. For colors, that depends on your own editing.

 

[corkyg]

Another factor that is not considered is room brightness and monitor brightness. Bottom line is, unless you are sending a file for printing, it is very possible that your calibration is only noticeable on your monitor.

So, what are we calibrating? The monitor or the image file?

 

[PurdueRy]

Well for soft proofing it is critical. Also, as I mentioned before, the farther your monitor differs from sRGB, the more critical it is. It's very noticeable in terms of white balance, you can't guarantee others will view it that way but at least you can guarantee your screen isn't contributing to how far off it is on someone else's monitor.

If you don't calibrate then you'll likely find the need to re-edit your photos each time you change your monitor.

 

[PrayForDeath]

http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/MONCAL/CALIBRATE.HTM
http://displaycalibration.com/
http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#QuickGamma

Just a few examples. None of these are going to get you anywhere near the results of a professional calibration, but they are a quick and easy way to make sure your monitor is at least in the right "neighborhood". I like QuickGamma (the last link) the best out of these options.

Thanks for the links. Will give this a try on my 2405WFP at home.

 

[Throckmorton]

Windows 7 has a calibrator BTW. It can adjust gamma, but not for individual channels AFAIK.

 

[yhelothar]

Well for soft proofing it is critical. Also, as I mentioned before, the farther your monitor differs from sRGB, the more critical it is. It's very noticeable in terms of white balance, you can't guarantee others will view it that way but at least you can guarantee your screen isn't contributing to how far off it is on someone else's monitor.

If you don't calibrate then you'll likely find the need to re-edit your photos each time you change your monitor.

I agree it's important for soft proofing as stated in my OP.
But my experience with my color calibrator is quite the opposite of what you describe. If I calibrate, then I find the need to reedit my photos on non calibrated screens. Whereas if I don't calibrate, most screens will look similar.

 

[corkyg]

Good photographers with good cameras take good pictures that should not need color adjustment. What you do to your monitor is a personal choice. My monitors are set at OEM's standard, which is based on Pantone. I have never had to edit colors in the file just because a different computer or monitor setting.

 

[yhelothar]

Yes taking good pictures to begin with does minimize the need for color adjustments. But there are many photo styles that are definitely amazing that do rely on color adjustments.
And even the best equipment won't have ideal white balance adjustment all of the time. A good photographer will learn to adjust white balance adjustment from the standard to fit the mood of the scene. Some scenes look better warmer, some colder.

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/50-great-photographers-you-should-know/